Don't know where to vote? [link] should help you find out, though it doesn't work for all places.
Don't know who to vote for? Sorry, can't help you there.
And please, no political discussion. I don't want a debate in this thread (at least not till all polling locations are closed so it doesn't matter), just want to remind people to get out and vote.
thanks escher this is gonna be my first time in front of a poll
I wanna see pics of you in that bikini!
bahaha! on that note i'll see you guys tomorrow! lmfaooo
thanks escher this is gonna be my first time in front of a poll
I remember my first vote.
God, I hate that SoB now.
So I guess the wife and I are just going to counteract each other's vote again...
I wanted to vote third party this cycle, but they just don't seem very good.
'least you had a third party. There was either just the standard two or not even that for all my choices this ticket. It always depresses me when I see a seat up for vote and only one person is running for it.
'least you had a third party. There was either just the standard two or not even that for all my choices this ticket. It always depresses me when I see a seat up for vote and only one person is running for it.
Yeah, someone running unopposed is just a failure of democracy.
My district actually has two independents. One is running as "Independent" and the other is running as "Green Tea Patriot". I looked up the Independent dude and he didn't seem too interesting. I tried to look up the Green Tea Patriot lady, but there was very little information on her. I couldn't even find a good page which listed her views. So I figure if you can't even present yourself, you're not getting a vote.
And on top of all that, I actually see some promising promises made by one of the normal candidates. So I'll probably be a sucker and vote for her.
(I'll do some last minute research to see if I can justify voting third party.)
I consider this to be more of a mid-term exam than a mid-term election, with the only question being "do you understand that it takes more than 2 years to fix what it took 8 years to break?"
Or how long does it take to repair and/or mitigate the damage from the previous 2 years, and the following 2 years.
I consider this to be more of a mid-term exam than a mid-term election, with the only question being "do you understand that it takes more than 2 years to fix what it took 8 years to break?"
Or how long does it take to repair and/or mitigate the damage from the previous 2 years, and the following 2 years.
Now now. Lets , like EE asked. I am being a good boy.
Funny that you waited until my reply, instead of boraxes, to voice your "want" to "keep this apolitical for the moment".
I can read you like an open book... a comic book to be more exact.
I do not understand why voter turn out is lower during midterms.
Generally speaking, people aren't very mindful of their civic duty. So when the vote only has one big wig up for the vote, it's easier for people to shrug it off as unimportant.
However, when it's the President, as well as a senator and a congressman, then people are much more likely to actually care (and have heard things about their candidates).
So to put it simply: because people are people.
I actually did respond to Boraxe. My caricature of a friend.
Wha?
Generally speaking, people aren't very mindful of their civic duty.
Considering how many peope in the world haven't the privilege of being allowed to vote, those who are able but who elect not do so sicken me.
It is funny, because the President is "only" the excutive branche of government. The legislative is really important.
And the non-armed forces branches of the DoD all do really important work, but someone that spent 20 years in one of them won't get half the prestige as someone that spent two years in the army.
That is to say, glamour and importance aren't the same thing.
Considering how many peope in the world haven't the privilege of being allowed to vote, those who are able but who elect not do so sicken me.
Agreed.
My other gripe is that we need a website that has the histories of all the candidates. I was up till 2 AM last night checking the web sites of all the candidates and cross-referencing that with articles about them. Since an educated voting public is so important (people who vote striaght party tickets, of either party, instead of doing the actual work really piss me off), it would be nice if we didn't have to scour the internet for the histories of the candidates.
Of course, now I have strange numerical deja vu about that number. I've seen it somewhere before... but where... (this is going to bother me all night!)
Though really, I didn't honestly have any good choices to vote for anyway.
I could have picked nutjob #1-4 3 of which wear Red Ties and are running on pretty much the same platform, or #4 who I knew nothing about.
Considering how many peope in the world haven't the privilege of being allowed to vote, those who are able but who elect not do so sicken me.
Point of clarification. By lumping together everyone who does not vote into the same category you would seem to include those who conciously object to the process as an act of tacit acceptance to what they see as unrightful rule.
I used to hate on those who don't vote, but I make exceptions for those who chose not to legitimize, as they see it, what is illegitemate.
Just saying.
My other gripe is that we need a website that has the histories of all the candidates. I was up till 2 AM last night checking the web sites of all the candidates and cross-referencing that with articles about them. Since an educated voting public is so important (people who vote striaght party tickets, of either party, instead of doing the actual work really piss me off), it would be nice if we didn't have to scour the internet for the histories of the candidates.
You should do like I did. Register as a permanant absentee, and vote at your leisure. I researched and had my ballot don a week ago. All I had to do was walk to the poll today and drop it off, no waiting in line.
Here's hoping the new Senate and Congress will be like Whose Line is it Anyways?: everything's made up and the points don't matter.
I went out and voted today. I didn't get my "I Voted" sticker (the guy behind the counter was forgetting to hand them out), but I managed to squeeze it in between work and class. I do wish election day was a national holiday. As much as we harp on the civic virtues of voting, it would be nice if people had the day off to get it done. It's not so much of an issue in the small town where I live (I got in, voted, and got out within 10 minutes), but I know it's a lot worse in the cities.
We always hold our elections on Sundays here
My other gripe is that we need a website that has the histories of all the candidates. I was up till 2 AM last night checking the web sites of all the candidates and cross-referencing that with articles about them. Since an educated voting public is so important (people who vote striaght party tickets, of either party, instead of doing the actual work really piss me off), it would be nice if we didn't have to scour the internet for the histories of the candidates.
The problem is it is hard to create a neutral website. So the way they do it now doesn't seem so bad. They have a list of candidates and they link to their own websites. At least you know its biased and in what ways.
lol my mother was convinced that if I wanted to vote yes on an amendment then I should really vote no because it was written in legalese to confuse you lmao so ill ask you guys. should I have voted YES on AMENDMENT 15 AND 16 to ELIMINATE gerrymandering?
YES! Gerrymandering is politicians manipulating districs or county borders to advantage them during elections. This way he can have places that vote massively for his party in his district. Of course this is a bit utopic. No politician will say that a district reform will be gerrymandering, you would have to prove it is. Not so easy. S othe proposition is a bit weird. Thank you mister Gerry Mander.
well where I live its more red-lining than gerrymandering. they seperate the black democrats till theres just enough to counter the white republican vote. keep in mind thats not me being racist, thats actually how politics work here. black= democrat, white = republican, and then the people that think they're educated fancy themselves as democrats too. Its not even politics so much now
its actually kind of pathetic.Now I have no real idea how to fix any of it. I'm jus' sayin' that playin' along won't change anything for the better.
And just so I feel better about my general apathetic approach to the vote this go 'round, here's a lil Carlin on voting:
Show
You may have noticed that there's one thing I don't complain about: Politicians. Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says, "They suck". But where do people think these politicians come from? They don't fall out of the sky. They don't pass through a membrane from another reality. No, they come from American homes, American families, American schools, American churches, American businesses, and they're elected by American voters. This is the best we can do, folks. It's what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out.
....I have solved this political dilemma in a very direct way: I don't vote. On Election Day, I stay home. I firmly believe that if you vote, you have no right to complain. Now, some people like to twist that around. They say, "If you don't vote, you have no right to complain", but where's the logic in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent politicians, and they get into office and screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You voted them in. You caused the problem. You have no right to complain.
I, on the other hand, who did not vote -- who did not even leave the house on Election Day -- am in no way responsible for that these politicians have done and have every right to complain about the mess that you created.
But I was never a fan of George Carlin anyway.
If you vote for someone - even if it's actually just to vote against someone else - you've voted them in. That's what a 'for' vote does. The intent behind it means nothing. Your 'I want him so the other guy doesn't win' ends at 'I want him' as far as the system is concerned.
Not true. I have never heard it denied by anyone that a vote for a certain candidate can easily have been a vote against another candidate. On the other hand, I'd say that by staying home, you're supporting whoever is most popular among the people who do vote, and you're not even showing any opposition to the establishment the way you'd do with a blank vote.
Edit: I agree with Scypio. Also, why does the board insert extra spaces between the words in my posts?
Right to complain about Obama (according to me):
People who voted for someone other than Obama > People who abstained > People who voted for Obama
Carlin stated that "if you vote, you have no right to complain" and if you do not vote, you have a right to complain. So I assume his view would be:
People who did not vote > People who voted
I heavily disagree with that because there is a segment of people who voted that acted as an obsticle for Obama. For every vote cast for someone else, Obama needed an extra vote (roughly, since districts and electorates make the equation more complex). But if you do not vote, you did not obstruct Obama in any way.
Obstaining (not voting) is just saying "I'll do whatever you want".
Right to complain about Obama (according to me):
People who voted for someone other than Obama > People who abstained > People who voted for Obama
And that's bullshit.
Regardless of whether someone voted or not (that is, did their civic duty and took part in their government) they're still stuck with whoever gets into office. And that person will most likely have some effect or other on their lives. And if they're having an effect on your life, that's where you get the right to complain (or praise).
Whether you voted or not? In the end that isn't so important. What's important is the effect on your life.
Regardless of whether someone voted or not (that is, did their civic duty and took part in their government) they're still stuck with whoever gets into office. And that person will most likely have some effect or other on their lives. And if they're having an effect on your life, that's where you get the right to complain (or praise).
I think doing instead of complaining is preferable, when that is an option. Everybody has a right to complain, but I don't think it's as justified if you haven't even bothered to try to do something about it.
As the saying goes: two nutjobs will always outvote a sane man, but to outvote a non-voter one nutjob is enough.
I think doing instead of complaining is preferable, when that is an option. Everybody has a right to complain, but I don't think it's as justified if you haven't even bothered to try to do something about it.
Nah. If a complaint (or compliment) is justified, then it's gotta stand on it's own merits, and not on the voting history of the person voicing the complain. It doesn't matter if the person is new to the situation or has been dealing with it for years, was until recently part of the problem or always on the outside looking in. The complain (or compliment) has gotta stand on it's own. If it relies on the person giving it voice, then you've got a fallacy.
Not true. I have never heard it denied by anyone that a vote for a certain candidate can easily have been a vote against another candidate. On the other hand, I'd say that by staying home, you're supporting whoever is most popular among the people who do vote, and you're not even showing any opposition to the establishment the way you'd do with a blank vote.
It doesn't matter if your vote for Person A was actually a vote against Person B. You still voted for Person A. All of the intent behind the vote itself vanishes once the human element is removed. Once you vote, the machine takes over and it doesn't care that the only reason you chose Person A was because you didn't want Person B to win. You chose Person A. That's the end of it. Until they add some way to track the 'I only voted for them cuz they weren't the other them' votes, they may as well not exist.
I get that not voting doesn't accomplish anything. I really honest to god was really sick and so I stayed home. My apathy about the whole thing just removed any guilt I may have felt. My vote would have changed nothing because no matter who wins nothing will change. I understand I need a better form of protest to be heard but I do not feel required to delude myself into imagining my say matters in the meantime. Cuz it doesn't. One shade of **** or the other, it's still all **** to me.
I'd say these recent elections along with the most recent presidential election display this quite nicely. We faced major challenges and, as a result, decided to go in a wholly different direction than we were when the challenges started. This brought us Obama who brought us nothing in the way of a fix (not to say that anyone else would). So we did it again - now we know it's the Democrats that can't do anything right and the Republicans will be our saviors. But it won't work. That means I honestly think Obama will be reelected. We put our trust in the Republicans again, you see, and they will fail - simply because failure is guaranteed no matter who you represent. So what the hell could my vote possibly mean? We don't know what we want, we certainly have no idea what we need and there is no way in hell we can choose a proper leader because we are entirely devoid of them. Today at this very moment, my vote - along with everyone else's - is totally worthless. The choice is the same, the result already written. I will not play the game simply to play it.
Edit: I agree with Scypio. Also, why does the board insert extra spaces between the words in my posts?
Do you still put your posts in a text doc and then transfer them? It may be some formatting issue between the program you use and the boards.
And that's bullshit.
Regardless of whether someone voted or not (that is, did their civic duty and took part in their government) they're still stuck with whoever gets into office. And that person will most likely have some effect or other on their lives. And if they're having an effect on your life, that's where you get the right to complain (or praise).
Whether you voted or not? In the end that isn't so important. What's important is the effect on your life.
I didn't say people who voted for Obama do not have a right to complain, just people who voted for someone else have more of a right to complain (or are more justified). Also, this doesn't take into account broken promises, which obviously are frequent, unless its a multi-term issue.
I think praise can be given no matter the voting situation.
I didn't say people who voted for Obama do not have a right to complain, just people who voted for someone else have more of a right to complain (or are more justified).
I'm reminded of something from Animal Farm. "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal then others".
A picture for you Z_B as it was shown to me by a friend after my dissapointment in having voted, and failed to achieve anything.
It doesn't matter if your vote for Person A was actually a vote against Person B. You still voted for Person A. All of the intent behind the vote itself vanishes once the human element is removed. Once you vote, the machine takes over and it doesn't care that the only reason you chose Person A was because you didn't want Person B to win. You chose Person A. That's the end of it. Until they add some way to track the 'I only voted for them cuz they weren't the other them' votes, they may as well not exist.
You're not voting to make a point to the machine. The human element is usually capable of discerning if a large part of votes against instead of for. It's like the difference between the flu and the plague, no one is saying it's a good choice.
On a slightly related note, sometimes you don't actually want the politicians to represent the people. The leader of one of the parties supporting the current government here have just suggested to remove the parabolic antennas in areas with many Muslim citizens, to prevent them from watching Al Jazeera. Doubly ironic because she was among those screaming the loudest about freedom of speech during the cartoon crisis. It's sad and ridiculous, and while the other parties have declined, a too large part of the population seems to agree.
Do you still put your posts in a text doc and then transfer them? It may be some formatting issue between the program you use and the boards.
I do. It's either that, write much slower, or have an embarrassing number of spelling mistakes. I just think it's funny that gleemax the new beta boards have decided on suddenly making new problems they didn't have before.
On a slightly related note, sometimes you don't actually want the politicians to represent the people. The leader of one of the parties supporting the current government here have just suggested to remove the parabolic antennas in areas with many Muslim citizens, to prevent them from watching Al Jazeera. Doubly ironic because she was among those screaming the loudest about freedom of speech during the cartoon crisis. It's sad and ridiculous, and while the other parties have declined, a too large part of the population seems to agree.
Hypocritical politicians are nothing new. The politicians in America screaming about wanting to reduce the size and power of government are also the ones saying the government should dictate what a woman can do with her own body. Apparently they see no conflict between saying government should get it's nose out of everyone's business while at the same time demanding it be stuck it in every uterus in the country.
You're not voting to make a point to the machine. The human element is usually capable of discerning if a large part of votes against instead of for. It's like the difference between the flu and the plague, no one is saying it's a good choice.
So you're saying that you can see some sort of 'against' sentiment when presented with '482,764 people voted for Person A and 397,895 people voted for Person B'? Yeah, I don't think so. My point is that you can have a point all you like but once it gets to the machines that take the vote and do the counting, the point is lost. They don't care if you were for or against and they are the ones that collect and present the data.
On a slightly related note, sometimes you don't actually want the politicians to represent the people. The leader of one of the parties supporting the current government here have just suggested to remove the parabolic antennas in areas with many Muslim citizens, to prevent them from watching Al Jazeera. Doubly ironic because she was among those screaming the loudest about freedom of speech during the cartoon crisis. It's sad and ridiculous, and while the other parties have declined, a too large part of the population seems to agree.
Ack. Yeah, there's plenty of representatives I'd never want to be confused as representing me.
I do. It's either that, write much slower, or have an embarrassing number of spelling mistakes. I just think it's funny that gleemax the new beta boards have decided on suddenly making new problems they didn't have before.
I don't know about funny ... ;) Pathetic? Maybe. Sad? Why not.
Hypocritical politicians are nothing new. The politicians in America screaming about wanting to reduce the size and power of government are also the ones saying the government should dictate what a woman can do with her own body. Apparently they see no conflict between saying government should get it's nose out of everyone's business while at the same time demanding it be stuck it in every uterus in the country.
And don't forget they want to tell us who can and can't get married and some others - from the other side - want to tell us what we can and can't eat or feed our kids. They all suck. But yeah, I can't fathom the 'thought' behind 'we want small gov't and we want to tell you how to live your life, too'. Does not compute.
Hypocritical politicians are nothing new. The politicians in America screaming about wanting to reduce the size and power of government are also the ones saying the government should dictate what a woman can do with her own body. Apparently they see no conflict between saying government should get it's nose out of everyone's business while at the same time demanding it be stuck it in every uterus in the country.
"Let's get the government out of our lives an into our pants". Seriously though, I think this is even more blatant. It's one thing to say that the government shouldn't interfere in general, and then want it to interference in some area anyway, it's even more stupid to say that the government shouldn't interfere in a specific area, and then wanting the government to interfere in that area whenever it suits you.
Also, I sometimes wish I could say that the government here doesn't represent the people, but they do. I can't even say it's the system that needs to change, because the will of the people is carried out. Maybe not with the result the people wanted (since spending money on ways to waste money doesn't give a healthy economy), and some of the spin the politicians pull off is impressive, but overall, I think our government represents the people exactly as they are, and it's not pretty.
So you're saying that you can see some sort of 'against' sentiment when presented with '482,764 people voted for Person A and 397,895 people voted for Person B'? Yeah, I don't think so. My point is that you can have a point all you like but once it gets to the machines that take the vote and do the counting, the point is lost. They don't care if you were for or against and they are the ones that collect and present the data.
Perhaps American political commentators just do things differently. Here, the primary interpretation of the result in the US is not that people were ecstatic about the Republicans or the Tea Party, but rather that they were disappointed with Obama. There have been talk about why certain candidates are popular, but mostly, the interpretation here is that Obama probably failed to read the public opinion, and that the population is generally disappointed, frustrated, and losing faith (in everything). Is that incorrect in your estimation?
But I was never a fan of George Carlin anyway.
I was.
Until I discovered politics...
Considering how many peope in the world haven't the privilege of being allowed to vote, those who are able but who elect not do so sicken me.
Agreed.
You are both intitled to your opinion, but voting implies a belife that I have a stake in the outcome. I do not belive that I do, that either thoes in power will stay in power and continue screwing up how they are already screwing up, or thoes who are elected into power will screw things up in a completly diffrent way. That things will never get better and infact cannot get better. Instead of choosing to exert what pitiful pull on can in determining what course of posion will drive us next, I choose to leave the choices to thoes who cling to fanatical belifes that they think will magically save the world, and just enjoy the ride as a doomed and amused spectator.
When someone convinces me that there is a plan that will actually work, I will join the delusional fanatics but till then, "Just because you can do something does not mean you should." There are alot of people right now who are not able to lick their toes without assistance, that does not mean I should partake of my ability to lick my feet.
But I was never a fan of George Carlin anyway.
I was.
Until I discovered politics...
Carlin was actually quite good for a long time. It wasn't until the latter years of his life that he felt he knew the gospel truth of all that ever was and ever will be. His comedy was still good though.
I voted but I was rather annoyed that I had to vote for meatsacks and their issues. All the proposals that benefit the machines were not considered on the ballots. Damn fleshlings...
am I the only one that cracks up hella hardcore at everything klirshon says?
But I was never a fan of George Carlin anyway.
I was.
Until I discovered politics...
Granted politics is funnier, but Carlin is still the master. He actually got better with age, too.
I voted but I was rather annoyed that I had to vote for meatsacks and their issues. All the proposals that benefit the machines were not considered on the ballots. Damn fleshlings...
am I the only one that cracks up hella hardcore at everything klirshon says?
Quite possibly.
Perhaps American political commentators just do things differently. Here, the primary interpretation of the result in the US is not that people were ecstatic about the Republicans or the Tea Party, but rather that they were disappointed with Obama. There have been talk about why certain candidates are popular, but mostly, the interpretation here is that Obama probably failed to read the public opinion, and that the population is generally disappointed, frustrated, and losing faith (in everything). Is that incorrect in your estimation?
Ok. Umm ... you win this point. Honestly. I was thinking far too narrowly about this. My bad.
voting is essential. if you're smart and you thiink you know whats best then why shouldnt you vote? I think yall might just be too lazy to vote -_-
Well, since I'm smart and I do know what's best, I also know that no politician has any idea what I want and that none of them even come close to approximating my position. I also know that no matter who's elected and what platform they allegedly support, they will do nothing. They are there to perpetuate the party and nothing more. It's all about tha dolla dolla bills, ya'all. So lazy? Yeah, howsabout 'no'. I prefer 'aware of the realities of US gov't' myself.
Perhaps American political commentators just do things differently. Here, the primary interpretation of the result in the US is not that people were ecstatic about the Republicans or the Tea Party, but rather that they were disappointed with Obama. There have been talk about why certain candidates are popular, but mostly, the interpretation here is that Obama probably failed to read the public opinion, and that the population is generally disappointed, frustrated, and losing faith (in everything). Is that incorrect in your estimation?
Ok. Umm ... you win this point. Honestly. I was thinking far too narrowly about this. My bad.voting is essential. if you're smart and you thiink you know whats best then why shouldnt you vote? I think yall might just be too lazy to vote -_-
Well, since I'm smart and I do know what's best, I also know that no politician has any idea what I want and that none of them even come close to approximating my position. I also know that no matter who's elected and what platform they allegedly support, they will do nothing. They are there to perpetuate the party and nothing more. It's all about tha dolla dolla bills, ya'all. So lazy? Yeah, howsabout 'no'. I prefer 'aware of the realities of US gov't' myself.
I might turn into a lurker
hahahaAww ... don't do that. You're ok in my book, kid. 'Course my book is unfit for readin', but whatever.
ha thanks zombs /thumbs up
Thanks everyone who said "my vote doesn't matter".
Sincerly,
Blue in a red state.
On a side note: Our state had a blatant red scare tactic on the ballot. "If you don't show up at the polls they'll BAN HUNTING AND FISHING!!!"
Seriously, hunting and fishing were already legal. There was an unnecessary ammendment to make it "constitutionally protected" in addition to being already legal. So all the hunters came out and voted.
My wife and I gladly went to the polls and threw our votes away.
Thanks everyone who said "my vote doesn't matter".
Sincerly,
Blue in a red state.
On a side note: Our state had a blatant red scare tactic on the ballot. "If you don't show up at the polls they'll BAN HUNTING AND FISHING!!!"
Seriously, hunting and fishing were already legal. There was an unnecessary ammendment to make it "constitutionally protected" in addition to being already legal. So all the hunters came out and voted.
lol did your guy "win"?
Our votes didn't matter because too many people are lazy and assume that their guy isn't going to win. The liberals in my area are all very disheartened with the politics and typically just avoid voting.
I vote because it is my duty to vote, not because I think my guy will win. Everyone should vote regardless of the chance that their vote matters.
I had a guy tell me "my vote only matters if the votes are tied", which is the typical selfish moronicisim I hear constantly from lazy people who don't care about politics.
I have a friend who is gay and she and her girlfriend didn't vote simply because "they don't care about politics", despite the fact that they're the ones most affected by getting conservatives who believe in "(My)Traditional family values (forced down everyone's throats)".
Bah.
Also, you shouldn't be allowed to vote if you don't know anything about the person you are voting for beyond "my pastor told me to vote for him".
No, our votes don't matter. :P
Our votes didn't matter because too many people are lazy and assume that their guy isn't going to win. The liberals in my area are all very disheartened with the politics and typically just avoid voting.
I vote because it is my duty to vote, not because I think my guy will win. Everyone should vote regardless of the chance that their vote matters.
I had a guy tell me "my vote only matters if the votes are tied", which is the typical selfish moronicisim I hear constantly from lazy people who don't care about politics.
I have a friend who is gay and she and her girlfriend didn't vote simply because "they don't care about politics", despite the fact that they're the ones most affected by getting conservatives who believe in "(My)Traditional family values (forced down everyone's throats)".
Bah.
eh I seee kind of what you're talking about
Carlin was actually quite good for a long time. It wasn't until the latter years of his life that he felt he knew the gospel truth of all that ever was and ever will be. His comedy was still good though.
Eh, I never thought he was very funny. But I'm not a fan of someone making "clever" statements that are supposed to be funny.
am I the only one that cracks up hella hardcore at everything klirshon says?
Negative. (Although I'm only slightly amused, not "hella hardcore".)
voting is essential. if you're smart and you thiink you know whats best then why shouldnt you vote? I think yall might just be too lazy to vote -_-
If you think you know what is best, you probably are not all that smart.
*waves at Z_B*
If you think you know what is best, you probably are not all that smart.
I agree. Unfortunately, the majority of our fellow citizens probably would not... which does not bode well.
If you think you know what is best, you probably are not all that smart.
*waves at Z_B*
I never said I think I know what's best, you know. I strongly implied that I do actually know what's best. That's a far different level of insane narcissism, my friend, and I'd appreciate credit in full for it.
If you think you know what is best, you probably are not all that smart.
*waves at Z_B*
I never said I think I know what's best, you know. I strongly implied that I do actually know what's best. That's a far different level of insane narcissism, my friend, and I'd appreciate credit in full for it.
My father and mother once had this conversation (abbreviated because I wasn't there):
[blah blah blah]
Father: You just think [something].
Mother: I don't "think", I know.
Father: I don't think you know either.
...
Thanks for adding to the divorce rate you two!
Sincerly,
Sanctity of Marriage.
most people should at least have some idea on how to improve things? everyone should have an idea of whats "best".
Probably. But the wise person knows that they themselves are probably wrong.
most people should at least have some idea on how to improve things? everyone should have an idea of whats "best".
Yes. Thing is that many people think that "what's best" is "don't get involved."
most people should at least have some idea on how to improve things? everyone should have an idea of whats "best".
Yes. Thing is that many people think that "what's best" is "don't get involved."
yeah lol thats true, same with you escher
Look at the long-term benefits to fighting for the better (or less bad) of two candidates, and then look at the short-term: one of them is going to be put into office, so wouldn't you want the one less likely to screw you over?
Boycotts really only work against corporations, because eventually enough people can boycott something to cripple the corporation's profits. Even if a full ninety percent of Americans refused to vote, the remaining ten percent would decide the outcome, and the majority would have accomplished nothing. Not acting accomplishes nothing.
The only way you can fix things for yourself, and the only way you're given the right to complain about the state of the country, is if you take steps to improve it. The least of these steps is to vote, but of course people can do more, including supporting candidates that are actually good, getting them past the primaries. People could also form third-parties themselves, or run for office on an existing ticket. Hell, vulgar mystery novel author Kinky Friedman nearly won governorship of Texas a few years back, so literally anyone has at least a chance at winning and changing the status quo. However, by not voting, the only thing you are doing is casting your life to the whims of others, so don't come crying to me when a proposition to adjust a nearby highway inconveniences you or a zoning resolution makes your property values plummet, because you could have voted No on that.
...yay?
Which part is confusing you?
you can at least work to make sure that between the choices you're offered, you select the less crappy one.
Heh, when I find one, I will.
Who knows, maybe after several cycles of your vote making a difference in electing less and less crappy people into office, they might start to become...good.
Ah, so whats needed is... one person trying not to elect crappy people. 'cause all thoes people who are voting are intentionally electing crappy people? Your position sounds either comicially delusional (Like arguing everyone should play the lottery 'cause someone needs to win) or more depressingly dark than my own (everyone who votes is intentionally trying to destroy the country).
The least of these steps is to vote, but of course people can do more, including supporting candidates that are actually good, getting them past the primaries.
Again, once I see one, they will have my support.
Still, it would be nice to actually vote on things like propositions. Oh well, whatcha gonna do?
I can't vote on account of being a felon, but I still donate some money (not much mind you for obvious reasons) to the campaigns of candidates I would support, so at least I'm making it possible for my chosen candidate to put adds out there to possibly win other votes.
Still, it would be nice to actually vote on things like propositions. Oh well, whatcha gonna do?
....whaaa????
I can't vote on account of being a felon, but I still donate some money (not much mind you for obvious reasons) to the campaigns of candidates I would support, so at least I'm making it possible for my chosen candidate to put adds out there to possibly win other votes.
Still, it would be nice to actually vote on things like propositions. Oh well, whatcha gonna do?
....whaaa????
Long story that I won't go into too much detail with but I will say, I made a mistake when I was younger and somebody got hurt and I'm paying the price for that mistake.
I can't vote on account of being a felon, but I still donate some money (not much mind you for obvious reasons) to the campaigns of candidates I would support, so at least I'm making it possible for my chosen candidate to put adds out there to possibly win other votes.
Still, it would be nice to actually vote on things like propositions. Oh well, whatcha gonna do?
Being a convicted felon doesn't automatically mean you can't vote. It depends on the type of felony...
Believe me, I speak from experience...
Look into it if you haven't already...
It has been a while since I looked into it so its possible the political climate has changed enough (new judges and all that) so it might be worth it to look into it again.
This is true. I think it also depends on the State too. I'm not real sure but I was told I would have to go back to the court I was convicted in. The offense was violent and so I've been labeled a violent felon and that hurts my chances. The victim also plays a role in it and is a strike against me.
It has been a while since I looked into it so its possible the political climate has changed enough (new judges and all that) so it might be worth it to look into it again.
My non-violent drug offense didn't stop me from voting...
Yeah, I misspoke when I said any and all felons. I should have been more precise but I didn't. Is it good enough for me to say, you are right and I may be wrong?
You don't even have to say that! I was just pointing out that some felons can vote, not trying to get in a pissing match with you.
Yeah, I misspoke when I said any and all felons. I should have been more precise but I didn't. Is it good enough for me to say, you are right and I may be wrong?
You don't even have to say that! I was just pointing out that some felons can vote, not trying to get in a pissing match with you.
my gramma is a felon and she voted but they were kinda iffy about it :/
My half-sister was so fed up with her neighbour ignoring by-laws and ordinances she ran for town council and ended up being elected and becoming deputy mayor.
Is she that new Toronto Mayor's deputy?
Hell no. If I knew anyone who worked for that piece of
I sure as hell wouldn't be telling people about it.Who said I was confused?
I did.
On the matter of voting, I class we learned that voting really didn't serve any personal interest. The chance of your vote being the determining vote in a district is almost nil. For your vote to mean something personaly, their would need to be a tie in the district in which you voted and then, if for example 999 person voted for the same canditate you did, you would have 1 in 1,000 chance to have cast the determining ballot. Now imagine this nation wide for a presidential election.
Clearly the person running your class is an idiot.
Long story that I won't go into too much detail with but I will say, I made a mistake when I was younger and somebody got hurt and I'm paying the price for that mistake.
A mistake? So you used salt instead of sugar in your coffee or forgot to carry the 3?
Long story that I won't go into too much detail with but I will say, I made a mistake when I was younger and somebody got hurt and I'm paying the price for that mistake.
A mistake? So you used salt instead of sugar in your coffee or forgot to carry the 3? Or did you actually make a choice?
I think he did manslaughter z)
Don't see why a choice can't be a mistake.
Don't see why a choice can't be a mistake.
or maybe he bludgeoned somebody
Don't see why a choice can't be a mistake.
Calling it a mistake instead of a choice is a way of absolving oneself of responsibility for it.
Knock it off, eh.
No it is not, and if he does not want to speak of it here and now, it is obscenly rude to speculate and comment upon it in the manner that you folks are doing. pish I of all people have to give you folks manner lessons? What. The. Hell.
Knock it off, eh.
oookk lol I'm done
No it is not, and if he does not want to speak of it here and now, it is obscenly rude to speculate and comment upon it in the manner that you folks are doing. pish I of all people have to give you folks manner lessons? What. The. Hell.
Knock it off, eh.
It's often those that call themselves ill-mannered that have the most. Maybe because they at least need a basic idea of what manners are to have bad ones.
Just because 1 vote doesn't matter, it doesn't mean that 1000 votes doesn't matter. Its just like taxes (or donations). My personal amount isn't going to do much, but supposedly the group amount will do stuff.
So yeah, that professor seems pretty horrible. Depending on his/her field, their horrible level can increase or decrease.
Don't see why a choice can't be a mistake.
Calling it a mistake instead of a choice is a way of absolving oneself of responsibility for it.
I think you're confusing accident with mistake, Boraxe.
Its basically the same idea as any sort of large scale action. (Conservation and pollution also are good examples.)
I think you're confusing accident with mistake, Boraxe.
I think they are used somewhat interchangably in this context. I've encountered so many people who try to mitigate their responsibility for their actions but euphemistically refereing to them as "mistakes" rather than owning up to thier choices. Not saying Idolis is doing that, it's just a pet peeve of mine. My post does kinda come across like I'm calling him out, though, which wasn't my intent.
you guys are too smart you're killing my brrain
That would explain your grammar.
(I wanted to add an epithet here, but I thing I've had enough being obnoxious d-bag for today).
Maybe you should LURK MOAR!!1! ;)
you guys are too smart you're killing my brrain
That would explain your grammar.
(I wanted to add an epithet here, but I thing I've had enough being obnoxious d-bag for today).
Maybe you should LURK MOAR!!1! ;)
hey you feel those things? ....they're like round and kinda plump? those are my nuts. can you hop off of them? ;)
hey you feel those things? ....they're like round and kinda plump? those are my nuts. can you hop off of them?
Are you saying that I'm depriving you of masculinity with my feet right now or that you prize me as much as if I was a, hmmm, vital part of your anatomy? ;)
Chill bro.
hey you feel those things? ....they're like round and kinda plump? those are my nuts. can you hop off of them?
Are you saying that I'm depriving you of masculinity with my feet right now or that you prize me as much as if I was a, hmmm, vital part of your anatomy? ;)
Chill bro.
no I was saying that you're riding me too hard ;)
you guys are too smart you're killing my brrain
Don't sell yourself short. I found you pretty quick witted in the Word Association thread and the conversation with Klirshon. You can also be funny.
Maybe you can form an informed opinion on certain subjects that are being discussed. Do a little research. Google doesn't hurt. Or just ask questions.
wow goldo that means alot to me man
thanks /shakes handI'll try my best
No problem.
/lowers pants zipper
stranger danger!!!!!
What? You're Emo. I thought it was all part of the sub-culture.
Emo doesn't equal gay goldo. From time to time I am interested in guys but you're almost double my age? lol what do I look like, a blonde?!?!?!?! lmao
But individually you just need to let the other people vote. And you won't loose time and gas.
That's your choice if you so wish.
stranger danger!!!!!
What? You're Emo. I thought it was all part of the sub-culture.
Emo doesn't equal gay goldo. From time to time I am interested in guys but you're almost double my age? lol what do I look like, a blonde?!?!?!?! lmao
... Blonde? Do I want to know the thought process that went behind that protest?
no I was saying that you're riding me too hard ;)
Do I look like a blonde?!
...oh wait, nevermind.
I'm not sure if I can fit my story into a single post. For a long while, I contemplated writing a book but I lack the energy and drive and so I dole out my story in bits and pieces. In several places on this board you can find parts of it but I'll place it all here.
I guess good stories start at the beginning and it will give me the opportunity to set the backdrop for the events that led to me to becoming a convicted felon.
As stated elsewhere, my Mom was lesbian. When she married my Dad, she didn't know that though. I mean, she knew she was different from her sisters and other women she knew but she didn't know why. After marrying my Dad, my Mom was invited to go to a bar by a woman she worked with as she she often told me, the minute she walked through that door she knew. It was like coming home, her words.
Well, things changed in my family that day. She still loved my Dad but she could no longer deny who she was. In an effort to keep our family together, my parents decided to have an open relationship but it just couldn't work. Both of them were unhappy and so the fights started soon after.
Four long years later, they decided they couldn't live like that anymore and got a divorce. I was 8 or 9 years old and my brother was even younger.
After there divorce, my Mom still wanted my little brother and I to know our grandparents and so every summer and Christmas break, we went to visit our grandparents on my Father's side.
For years, my grandfather had been molesting us but until I was 11 it took place at bath times or things similar where it didn't seem like anything wrong, you know just trying to get us clean or a little bump or touch every now and then.
That changed after a car accident, that sent my grandmother to the hospital with a fractured vertebre. That night, it became more overt with my brother and I sleeping in his bed with him and him messing with us all night long.
Our Mom came and picked us up the next morning and for reasons I could never explain, my brother and I didn't tell her what was happening. Instead, I made the decision, at 11 years old mind you, that I would make myself available so that he would leave my brother alone.
For 3 years it continued that way and I became more and more angry. I couldn't tell my Mom what was happening because, as I have posted elsewhere she was bipolar and watching her and my Dad fight for years I thought she'd stop letting us see our Dad or worse actually kill my grandfather. We couldn't tell our Dad because it was his Dad and we didn't know what his reaction would be.
We did tell our grandmother and three seperate occasions but she always would ask us "What do you want me to do? Call the police?" and then go into telling us about sending grandpa to jail and never being able to see her again and things like that. We didn't want that, we just wanted grandpa to stop messing with us.
At a loss and confused about what to do, I told a friend at school about my Mom and grandpa, that friend then went on to tell two other kids and from there it was spread all over the school so that the next day I was met at the gates to the school with the chant "Chester Molester".
About that same time there was a news report that homosexuality was linked to a gene or something like that so then it started to go from "Chester Molester" to "You're a (british slang for cigarrette)!" As if I wasn't confused enough about my sexuality.
Eventually, my grades dropped and my Mom realized something was wrong. There were other signs to like soiled underwear and things of that nature. Oddly enough, she asked if it was my Dad and that made me angry enough to tell her about the molestation but I didn't tell her about the stuff going on at school because I didn't want her to blame herself for the ridicule I was recieving.
I got angrier and angrier and it started to affect my home life with fights with my little brother and cursing out my Mother and things of that nature.
My Mom took to me get counseling and the psychiatrist started treating me with drug for bipolar disorder but didn't diagnose me with it for fear it would label me for life. Things got better but when I turned 18 I was no longer covered under my Mother's insurance so I was taken off the meds and stopped seeing doctors thinking I was okay.
I was still angry though, pissed at the world. A couple of years later, I was doing things like yelling at my girlfriends and pushing them. I never hit them but I was very abusive. Seeking help, I went back to doctors and was finally diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder. I had a good job with great insurance and my life was better again.
Eventually, I was hurt in another car accident and I had to make a choice between using the insurance money from my job to either pay for my meds or put food on the table for my girlfriend and her three kids. (This is where the mistake comes in) I decided to try to do both and so started to take half the medication instead of taking it as directed to save money. It worked for a while and when I went back to work I continued to take half my medication.
This helped me as far as work goes, because it insured that I stayed manic and my performance at work was outstanding. I got promotions and accolades from my employer but at home, things were falling apart again.
At some point, I experienced an episode of manic rage and took a belt to one of my girlfriend's sons. He was only five and I left his rearend pretty bruised. When I saw the bruises the next morning, I left my girlfriend's house because I knew I messed up. I never wanted to hurt a child. I knew what that was like and what it did to me.
I stayed away from her and her kids even though she continually tried to bring them around me and wanted to get back together. What I didn't know was that the school had seen the bruises and called the police and that they had been to her house several times looking for me.
When I discovered this, I turned myself in and was charged with Aggravated Battery of a Child. That's when it hit me how bad it was.
Everything hit me then. The stuff that happened to me and all the stuff I did was too much. Guilt and fear caused me to attempt suicide by overdosing on my medications (as mentioned in another thread I took 27,000+ mg)
When I recovered, I went to my attorney and told him I wanted to plead guilty to save the boy from having to testify.
I was convicted but because it was my first offense, I was given 5 years probation with a suspended sentence of 3 years in prison.
For that 5 years, I withdrew from the world. I didn't feel safe enough to be around people except for my family. After my conviction, I lost my job and the insurance that went with it and so I was completely off meds until I was approved for Social Security and Medicare.
After that, I went back to doctors and counseling. Eventually, through EMDR I confronted the demons that had plagued me all through my life because to put it bluntly, I got tired of being angry and abusive.
I'm not proud of the things I've done and the choices I've made and I still feel guilty for the pain I caused the people in my life especially that little boy.
I was given a second chance and later I met the woman who would become my wife and she knows everything about me and still loves the man that I have become so I'm happy with the progress that I've made but I will never ever forget my past.
Simply by telling that story, and your reaction to your own behavior and wish to change it, says a lot about you.
I, for one, applaud you for your hard work and preserverence to be better. The fact that you realized what your "problems" were, and your struggle to correct them, not only for your benefit, but for the benefit of your loved ones, says a lot about you as a person.
Idolis...
Simply by telling that story, and your reaction to your own behavior and wish to change it, says a lot about you.
I, for one, applaud you for your hard work and preserverence to be better. The fact that you realized what your "problems" were, and your struggle to correct them, not only for your benefit, but for the benefit of your loved ones, says a lot about you as a person.
I have nothing to add to this besides my full agreement.
Edit:
And you too Ragnar.
Man I really got to break the habit of sharing my personal my life on message boards, but maybe I'm not punishing done punishing myself for the bad things I've done. I openned the door and now people have questions. The questions are to be expected and if I wasn't prepared for them, then I just should have kept my mouth shut.
I disagree. People aren't entitled to your life story, so however much you want to share is what they'll have to be satisfied with. If that means you say "sorry, I don't want to go into more detail" when people ask prying questions, then so be it, people will just have to have their curiosity unsated.
"sorry, I don't want to go into more detail" when people ask prying questions, then so be it, people will just have to have their curiosity unsated.
I gave a small amount of information and people decided to let their imaginations go wild. It was my own fault for sharing but the thread was about voting and people's reasons for or against voting and my reason was because I'm a felon.
I think I agree with you and TA that it wasn't anybody's business but like I said, I openned the door.
Anyway, I shared and it left more questions than it answered. I could have kept silent, since you and TA had quelled the questions but I have never really had a problem sharing my past.
I did sort of throw you and TA under the bus though and for that I apologize.
You are absolutely correct that had I not wanted to, I didn't have to answer.
And it was just TA that chided people, I wasn't involved in that.
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->
[snip]
I agree with RH. Also, not allowing felons (including inmates) to vote is undemocratic, and I hope you get your rights back as soon as possible.
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->
I agree with RH.
You do?!
What the....
I don't even...
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->
I agree with RH.
You do?!
What the....
I don't even...
I think it's very hard to disagree that Idolis' previous situation and state of mind were tragic, and that his actions to raise above them are admirable. Our only point of disagreement is that I would have liked him not to be dependant on company insurance in the first place
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->I agree with RH.
You do?!
What the....
I don't even...
I think it's very hard to disagree that Idolis' previous situation and state of mind were tragic, and that his actions to raise above them are admirable. Our only point of disagreement is that I would have liked him not to be dependant on company insurance in the first place
noooo smh
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->
I agree with RH. Also, not allowing felons (including inmates) to vote is undemocratic, and I hope you get your rights back as soon as possible.
I'd say taking away the right to vote is a viable part of a punishment; inmates for sure.
I'd say taking away the right to vote is a viable part of a punishment; inmates for sure.
Why? Did they stop being people? The whole idea about rights, as opposed to privileges, is that you shouldn't have to earn them. In fact, many of the most important rights (such as the right to a fair trial) are mostly relevant to people who are undeserving. I'd say that if the votes of inmates would be enough to change society into accepting crime, we're doomed anyway, and compromising democracy by making more rules about who're allowed to contribute wont change that.
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->
I'd say it's about reducing crime and providing justice for the victims. The thing is, I don't believe shutting people out from democracy is the way of doing it. And I don't think it's protecting the public in the long run.
America is much more of a republic in that sense. People just like the term of democracy. If you look historically, the founders excluded many people from the voting process. Actions were taken to include certain groups, but I guess no one really feels the need to push for felons' voting rights.
I have a very negative opinion of Aristole. So I probably should read more of his stuff to clarify and be more informed. I remember reading and discussing his philosophies back in the day, but I honestly can't remember much of his stuff now.
Now, I'm not sure if its true or not but it sounds right when you consider that a fairly large percentage, don't have the exact number but its probably in the 10's, of the population have been convicted of crimes they would be a powerful voting block.
Every once in a while, usually around election time, a candidate will mention loosening the restrictions that keep felons from voting but at the same time they push for harsher punishments for criminals so it usually doesn't go anywhere.
2% in prison sounds right, but I said convicted not incarcerated, they do let criminals out of prison so I imagine, that number is higher.
Eh, I think the biggest danger of democracy is that it puts government in the hands of people, who are stupid and easily manipulated. Also, I don't think the danger of plutocracy is a product of democracy, but one of capitalism.
Also, people need to stop putting communism as an opponent to democracy. It is an economic system, so it should be an opponent to capitalism. If you want to be analogious to the US/Soviet dispute, it'd be Totalitarian regimes (or dictatorships) are the opponent to democracy.
As it was explained to me back in High School, the number one reason felons are not allowed to vote is because if given the power they will push for laws to be overturned such as the legalization of drugs.
That is what I heard as well.
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->
As it was explained to me back in High School, the number one reason felons are not allowed to vote is because if given the power they will push for laws to be overturned such as the legalization of drugs.
So the majority of the population want something, and the people in power prevent them by taking away their voting rights for not following the current laws, thus preventing them from ever changing said laws? That sounds like a vicious circle to me.
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->As it was explained to me back in High School, the number one reason felons are not allowed to vote is because if given the power they will push for laws to be overturned such as the legalization of drugs.
So the majority of the population want something, and the people in power prevent them by taking away their voting rights for not following the current laws, thus preventing them from ever changing said laws? That sounds like a vicious circle to me.
Well, to be fair, felons did break the law, and must be punished.
And inmates basically have very little rights. There are a lot of things inmates do not have that are taken completely for granted "on the street" by "regular" people.
Hey, I've spent time in Fed joints, and while they weren't that bad, I don't ever, ever want to go back... not even to visit.
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->As it was explained to me back in High School, the number one reason felons are not allowed to vote is because if given the power they will push for laws to be overturned such as the legalization of drugs.
So the majority of the population want something, and the people in power prevent them by taking away their voting rights for not following the current laws, thus preventing them from ever changing said laws? That sounds like a vicious circle to me.
Yes, that's what it is but the nightmare scenario, or boogeyman in the closet if you will, is that criminals would vote to overturn crimes like robbery and murder and nobody wants that.
Anything is possible. There's probably a lot of people who come out of jail a better men, and an equal amount who come out worse men.
Number 1: rehab is a myth if you believe the numbers on recidivism.
Number 2: if they had sense they wouldn't have been caught in the first place (j/k)
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->
Well, to be fair, felons did break the law, and must be punished.
And inmates basically have very little rights. There are a lot of things inmates do not have that are taken completely for granted "on the street" by "regular" people.
I know prisons aren't the most pleasant environments (though I have no intention of experiencing it personally), but imo, voting is one of the most fundamental rights and shouldn't be taken away lightly. It also doesn't seem to accomplish anything. I don't believe it will make most victims feel better, and I don't think losing the opportunity to vote will be what keeps people from committing crimes.
Yes, that's what it is but the nightmare scenario, or boogeyman in the closet if you will, is that criminals would vote to overturn crimes like robbery and murder and nobody wants that.
To quote myself:
I'd say that if the votes of inmates would be enough to change society into accepting crime, we're doomed anyway, and compromising democracy by making more rules about who're allowed to contribute wont change that.
Murder being legalised means more than half the people who voted wanted to legalise it. If that that could happen, you've got bigger problems. Besides, I don't think most criminals believe what they did should be legal. At most, they believe it should be legal for them to do, but not for others to do against them. That's the biggest threat, imo. Not people saying something should be allowed or disallowed, but people saying certain things should be allowed or disallowed for certain people only.
It isn't logical to believe that, because as you point out it will take more than felons voting on it to overturn the laws but who said people were logical.
That bothers me. However, a fear I have, just my personal thing, is if I'm able to vote to get that restriction lifted whose to say that a real sex offender won't push for the whole list to be abolished. Like I said, its isn't logical or rational, but it is a fear I have.
Eh, I think the biggest danger of democracy is that it puts government in the hands of people, who are stupid and easily manipulated.
Dude! Am I trolling if I link this?
If you have to ask, ur not doin it rite.
2% in prison sounds right, but I said convicted not incarcerated, they do let criminals out of prison so I imagine, that number is higher.
Over 7.2 million people were at that time in prison, on probation, or on parole. Of that 7.2 million, 2.3 million are in prison. According to this.
And probation and parole ends, so again, I say that number is higher. Do they have a statistic for all convicted felons including those released from prison and finished their parole, and those that were put on probation and completed it.
After they finish their punishment, they are still felons and AFAIK most are still not able to vote unless they sue to get their rights back.
Dude! Am I trolling if I link this?
Well, he did have one thing right: we will not destroy this planet. Even Global Warming (if real
) won't do that. It'll simply kill us and a lot of other stuff. Things'll change, sure, but this ol' rock? She'll keep a' spinnin'.I'd say taking away the right to vote is a viable part of a punishment; inmates for sure.
Why? Did they stop being people? The whole idea about rights, as opposed to privileges, is that you shouldn't have to earn them. In fact, many of the most important rights (such as the right to a fair trial) are mostly relevant to people who are undeserving. I'd say that if the votes of inmates would be enough to change society into accepting crime, we're doomed anyway, and compromising democracy by making more rules about who're allowed to contribute wont change that.
They stoped being free citizens yes. Not all people may vote. Only free citizens of a certain age bracket.
Once you have served your time though... probably should have yoru rights to vote reinstated